{"id":"court_ctb_1453_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1453,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2023-02-10","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                             | :      |                         |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :      | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x |                         |\n|                                                             |        |                         |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEBTOR, MEI GUO, AND HK (USA) SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS AND SANCTIONED FOR SUCH CONTEMPT**\n\nLuc Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this motion (the \"Motion\") requesting entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to section 105 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and Rules 9014 and 9020 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), requiring the Debtor, Mei Guo (the \"Debtor's Daughter\"), and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK (USA)\" and, together with the Debtor and the Debtor's Daughter, the \"Respondents\") to appear *at a date and time to be determined by the Court*, at the United States Bankruptcy Court, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604, and show cause why the Court should not hold them in civil\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\ncontempt for failing to adequately respond to or comply with the Court's *Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas* (ECF No. 1353) (entered Jan. 20, 2023, the \"January 20 Order\"). In support of this Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Respondents have, for the last approximately six months, attempted to frustrate the Trustee's investigation into potential assets of the estate at nearly every turn. The January 20 Order sought to finally put an end to this obstruction by (i) compelling the Respondents to comply with the Trustee's Rule 2004 Orders<sup>2</sup> and related subpoenas by producing certain previouslywithheld documents by January 31, 2023, and (ii) instructing the Debtor to file with the Court a sworn declaration detailing the process by which he searched for potentially responsive documents by February 7, 2023. Rather than comply with these directives and finally provide the Trustee the discovery to which he is entitled, the Respondents have again opted to obfuscate and delay.\n\n2. For his part, the Debtor has—for the first time in response to the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoena<sup>3</sup>—sought to invoke his rights under the Fifth Amendment as a means to produce *no* documents to the Trustee and provide *no* description of his document search process. The Debtor bears the burden of demonstrating that the Fifth Amendment relieves him of his discovery obligations, and he has not come close to carrying that burden here. Indeed, the Debtor has provided no explanation at all as to why the production of documents or the submission of the\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms not defined in this Preliminary Statement have the meanings given to them *infra*.\n\n<sup>3</sup> As the Court is well aware, the Debtor has invoked the Fifth Amendment numerous times in this case—including more than 200 times during one hearing in December 2022—to avoid providing testimony on substantive issues. He has not, however, previously taken the position that the Fifth Amendment prevents him from producing documents or even describing the process by which he searched for documents. To the contrary, prior to the issuance of the January 20 Order, the Debtor produced some (albeit very limited) documents to the Trustee and sought to explain certain aspects of his collection process to the Court in response to the Trustee's motion to compel—all without invoking the Fifth Amendment.\n\ndeclaration required by the January 20 Order would cause him to provide incriminating testimony.\n\nThe only information the Debtor has provided is the following:\n\n- On February 1, 2023, the day after the deadline for the Debtor to produce documents, the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel sent an email to the Trustee's counsel stating that, in response to the January 20 Order, the Debtor \"is asserting his rights under the 5th Amendment, including any rights under the Act of Production Doctrine.\"<sup>4</sup>\n- On February 7, 2023, the Debtor filed a declaration (ECF No. 1444) (the \"February 7 Declaration\") with the Court stating that he is \"invok[ing] [his] rights under the 5 th Amendment to the United States Constitution, including under the act of production doctrine, with respect to the Subpoena dated August 17, 2022, in its entirety, including all requests for documents and information set forth therein.\"\n- On February 7, 2023, in response to a request by the Trustee for a further explanation of the basis for the Debtor's invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel stated, \"[w]e have nothing further to add at this time concerning the Debtor's invocation of his 5th amendment right. We will continue to discuss the issue with his criminal counsel.\" 5\n- 3. The Debtor is not entitled to blanket Fifth Amendment protection from the\n\nrequirements of the January 20 Order on this paltry record, especially since it is far from apparent as to how the Fifth Amendment could apply in this situation. With respect to the order's document production requirement, the Debtor must explain, at a minimum, how his production of documents would be \"testimonial,\" in addition to incriminating. As for the declaration requirement, the Debtor needs to explain to the Court how merely describing the process by which he searched for documents (separate and apart from the actual production of those documents) is somehow likely to incriminate him—a proposition that is nonsensical on its face. He has done none of this.\n\n<sup>4</sup> An e-mail chain including the Feb. 1, 2023 email from Debtor's bankruptcy counsel to the Trustee's counsel is attached as **Exhibit A** to the Declaration of Nicholas A. Bassett in support of the Motion (the \"Bassett Declaration\"), filed concurrently herewith.\n\n<sup>5</sup> *See* Bassett Decl., Ex. A. Counsel did not identify who is serving as the Debtor's \"criminal counsel.\"\n\n4. The Debtor's Daughter's and HK USA's failure to comply with the January 20 Order is even more straightforward but equally brazen: they have simply ignored the Courtordered deadline and produced no documents to the Trustee. The Trustee has met and conferred with their counsel on several occasions to no avail. Most recently, on February 10, 2023, counsel to the Debtor's Daughter and HK USA stated that they believed it might take them another month to comply with their document production obligations. Any such delay is entirely unacceptable in light of the Court-ordered deadline and is a blatant disregard for this Court's authority.\n\n5. The Trustee had hoped to avoid involving the Court in this matter, especially in light of the Court's directive in its mediation order that the parties should, where possible, meet and confer to avoid legal process during the pendency of the mediation.<sup>6</sup> Unfortunately, the Trustee's efforts to resolve these issues consensually in conversations with counsel for the Respondents were unsuccessful, leaving the Trustee with no other option but to seek relief from the Court to address the Respondents' failure to comply with the January 20 Order.\n\n6. By this motion, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Respondents be required to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of Court for violating the January 20 Order. If they fail to do so, the Court should issue appropriate sanctions, including, without limitation, finding certain facts (including ownership of assets) established against them and issuing an appropriate award of costs and expenses to the Trustee, including his attorneys' fees.\n\n<sup>6</sup> The Respondents are acting as if the Court's mediation order has relieved them of having to comply with other Court orders during the pendency of the mediation and otherwise cooperate with the Trustee in the bankruptcy case. The Court's order provided no such thing.\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n### **A. Trustee's Rule 2004 Investigation.**\n\n7. Following his appointment in July 2022, the Trustee immediately commenced a comprehensive investigation into the Debtor's assets and affairs. This investigation is critical to the administration of the Debtor's estate given his assertions that, despite being a self-proclaimed billionaire, he has virtually no assets to his name for distribution to creditors.\n\n8. On August 16, 2022, in furtherance of the Trustee's investigation, the Court entered orders (the \"Rule 2004 Orders\")<sup>7</sup> authorizing the issuance of subpoenas for the examination of the Respondents, among other parties, pursuant to Rule 2004. In accordance with the Rule 2004 Orders, on or about August 19, 2022, the Trustee served Rule 2004 Subpoenas on the Respondents.\n\n9. For the next several months, the Trustee worked tirelessly to obtain the Respondents' full compliance with the Rule 2004 Orders and related subpoenas.<sup>8</sup> As described in the record underlying the January 20 Order, however, these efforts were unsuccessful. The Debtor and others within his orbit, including the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA), frustrated the examination process at every turn, ultimately producing a grand total of only *forty-six* (Debtor), *nineteen* (the Debtor's Daughter), and *four hundred seventy-two* (HK (USA)) documents, respectively. With limited exceptions, the Respondents refused to, among other things, (i) produce documents related to assets they contend belong to the Debtor's family members or other persons and entities, (ii) collect and produce documents in the possession of their counsel and advisors, or (iii) sufficiently describe the efforts by which they searched for responsive documents.\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* (ECF Nos. 757 and 758).\n\n<sup>8</sup> The Daughter is the purported sole owner of HK (USA), who but for the Daughter has no officers, employees, directors, members, managers, or managing members through whom it may act.\n\n10. On October 28, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 1046) (the \"Motion to Compel\") the Respondents' compliance with the Rule 2004 Orders and subpoenas. On November 14, 2022, the Respondents filed a joint objection to the Motion to Compel. A hearing on the Motion to Compel occurred on November 30, 2022. The Debtor did not at any time in response to the Motion to Compel raise the Fifth Amendment as a means to avoid his discovery obligations. Following the hearing, the Court issued the January 20 Order.\n\n### **B. January 20 Order**\n\n11. The January 20 Order required the Debtor to (i) by 5:00 p.m. on January 31, 2023 (the \"Document Production Deadline\"), search for and produce to the Trustee documents responsive to: \"the Trustee's requests dated June 1, 2014, or later; . . . the Trustee's requests as to both assets he acknowledges he owns and assets allegedly belonging to persons or entities other than the Debtor, including without limitation his family members and associated entities; and . . . the Trustee's requests that are within [the Debtor's] custody, possession, or control, including without limitation documents in the files of his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors,\" and (ii) by 5:00 p.m. on February 7, 2023 (the \"Declaration Deadline\"), file with the Court \"a sworn declaration describing in detail the document collection, search, and review actions taken by him and his counsel in response to the subpoena, including without limitation a detailed description of the processes that he and his counsel performed to . . . identify [and search] all of the Debtor's\" electronic devices, online document repositories and various online or electronic accounts, financial accounts and \"all other potential sources of responsive hard copy and electronic documents that may exist[.]\"January 20 Order (ECF No. 1353).\n\n12. Similarly, the January 20 Order required the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) to, by the Document Production Deadline, search for and produce to the Trustee<sup>9</sup> documents responsive to the Trustee's requests, including documents as to assets the Debtor acknowledges he owns and assets that allegedly belong to persons or entities other than the Debtor, \"including Mei Guo herself, and associated entities, including HK (USA) itself;\" and documents within the Daughter's and HK (USA)'s custody, possession, and control. *Id.*\n\n## **C. Debtor's Noncompliance with January 20 Order**\n\n13. The day after the Document Production Deadline, the Debtor's counsel at Zeizler & Zeisler (\"Bankruptcy Counsel\") emailed counsel to the Trustee stating, for the first time, that the Debtor was asserting his rights under the Fifth Amendment, including the act of production doctrine, in response to the January 20 Order's document production requirement. On the Declaration Deadline, the Debtor submitted the February 7 Declaration stating that he was asserting his rights under the Fifth Amendment, including the act of production doctrine, in response to the Rule 2004 Order and subpoena directed to him and the January 20 Order.\n\n14. Immediately after receiving the February 7 Declaration, counsel to the Trustee emailed the Debtor's Bankruptcy Counsel requesting a further explanation as to how the Fifth Amendment prevented the Debtor from producing documents or preparing the declaration required by the January 20 Order. Bankruptcy Counsel responded that it had \"nothing further to add at this time concerning the Debtor's invocation of his 5th amendment right\" but that counsel would continue to discuss the issue with the Debtor's criminal counsel. 10\n\n<sup>9</sup> The January 20 Order excludes documents that concern the Lady May from the ambit of materials the Court ordered the Daughter and HK (USA) to search for and produce.\n\n<sup>10</sup> *See* Bassett Decl., Ex. A.\n\n### **D. Debtor's Daughter's and HK (USA)'s Noncompliance with January 20 Order**\n\n15. More than 10 days have passed since the Document Production Deadline, and yet the Daughter and HK (USA) have neither produced any documents to the Trustee nor confirmed whether any additional responsive documents have been identified for production. The Trustee has had discussions with the Daughter's and HK (USA)'s counsel concerning this issue, but these discussions have not been productive.\n\n16. Originally, one of the law firms representing the Daughter and HK (USA) (the Zeisler firm) requested an extension of time to complete the production until February 3, 2023 while the parties discussed other scheduling issues in light of the Court's order instructing the parties to engage in mediation. In response, the Trustee agreed that he would not seek to compel compliance with the January 20 Order if production did not occur until February 3, 2023.\n\n17. On February 3, the Zeisler firm, on behalf of the Daughter and HK (USA), asked for a further extension of the Document Production Deadline through February 17, 2023, with productions from the Daughter and HK (USA) to begin on February 10, 2023. While the Trustee did not agree to such extension, the Trustee indicated that he did not wish to unnecessarily involve the Court in a further dispute at this time and, therefore, would not, as a practical matter, seek relief from the Court concerning the missed deadline earlier than February 7, 2023.\n\n18. On February 7, at the direction of the Zeisler firm, the Trustee's counsel conferred with the Daughter's and HK (USA)'s other counsel (Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (\"CSG Law\")) via telephone regarding compliance with the January 20 Order. During that conversation, counsel at CSG Law stated that he would be discussing a response to the January 20 Order's document production requirement with his client the next day and hoped to complete his document production by the end of the week or, perhaps, the beginning of the following week. The Trustee's counsel again responded that, although the production was long overdue, the Trustee did not want\n\nto expend resources on motion practice if the document production was forthcoming. CSG Law promised to provide an update on February 8, 2023.\n\n19. The Trustee's counsel did not receive an update on February 8. On February 9, the Trustee's counsel wrote to CSG Law<sup>11</sup> asking for an update on the production and reminding counsel of his clients' search and production obligations under the January 20 Order, noting that the Trustee intended to move the Court for relief by the end of the week if a satisfactory response was not provided. On February 10, 2023, the Trustee again conferred with both CSG Law and the Zeisler firm. During this call, counsel at CSG Law outlined a process for collecting and producing documents, noting that he expected such process may take another month to complete.\n\n### **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY BASES**\n\n20. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended). This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n21. Venue is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n22. The bases for the relief requested herein are section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules 9014 and 9020.\n\n## **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n## **A. Debtor Has Failed to Comply With January 20 Order**\n\n23. The party invoking the protection of the Fifth Amendment bears the burden of demonstrating how and why it applies in a given situation. *See, e.g., In re Schick*, 215 B.R. 4, 9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 1997). To satisfy this burden, the party \"must provide enough information to\n\n<sup>11</sup> An e-mail chain including the Feb. 9, 2023 email from Trustee's counsel to CSG Law is attached as **Exhibit B** to the Bassett Declaration.\n\nenable the Court to conduct a factual inquiry to determine the incriminating potential of the documents sought and the act of production against the privilege asserted.\" *Id*. at 9 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). \"[I]n order to effectively invoke the protections of the Fifth Amendment, a party must make a particularized objection to each discovery request.\" *In re Astor*, 62 A.D.3d 867, 869 (2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted).\n\n24. Here, the Debtor has not come close to carrying his burden of demonstrating why he is entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment with respect to either his document production obligation or the requirement of the January 20 Order that he submit a declaration describing his document search and collection process.\n\n## **i. Debtor Has Not Established Why Fifth Amendment Allows Him to Avoid Producing Documents Requested by Trustee.**\n\n25. The Fifth Amendment privilege \"does not . . . reach the content of voluntarily created documents because there is no compulsion to create them.\" *Schick* 215 B.R. at 8. \"This is particularly true where the contents of the documents relates to debtors, their property and their business transactions.\" *Id*.; *see also Butcher v. Bailey*, 753 F.2d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1985) (\"Information relating to property of the estate is not so intimately personal as to evoke serious concern over privacy interests, particularly in bankruptcy where the trustee has a strong interest in knowing the nature and scope of the estate's holdings.\").\n\n26. The only possible basis on which the Debtor could withhold documents under the Fifth Amendment is pursuant to the so-called \"act of production\" doctrine. Under this doctrine, a party's production of documents in response to a subpoena or other process can potentially raise Fifth Amendment concerns if the act of producing the documents is itself \"testimonial\" in character and would incriminate the producing party. *Schick* 215 B.R. at 9. The doctrine has been relatively rarely applied and is only available upon a showing by the producing party that its requirements\n\n10\n\nare satisfied. *See id*. (a \"party does not discharge the burden simply by asserting that he will incriminate himself by producing the documents\" but, rather, must provide enough information to enable the Court to determine whether the doctrine has been properly invoked.); *Hoffman v. United States*, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951) (\"The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself—his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified.\").<sup>12</sup>\n\n27. The Debtor has not even attempted to demonstrate how the act of production doctrine permits him to avoid producing particular documents or categories of documents, let alone *every document* the Trustee has requested. This blanket assertion of the doctrine as to all documents in the Debtor's possession, custody, or control is both unprecedented and indefensible. *See Bailey*, 753 F.2d at 470 (\"[T]he debtor must, at least, classify documents and indicate something about why the act of production of each class of documents might be incriminating.\").\n\n28. Accordingly, the Debtor has failed to comply with the clear requirement of the January 20 Order that he produce documents by January 31, 2023.\n\n## **ii. Debtor Has Not Established Why Fifth Amendment Prevents Him From Providing Required Declaration.**\n\n29. The Debtor's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to the requirement of the January 20 Order that he provide a declaration detailing his search and collection process is even more perplexing. As noted above, the Debtor bears the burden of establishing why the particular testimony he is being asked to provide would be incriminating. He cannot meet this burden.\n\n<sup>12</sup> The act of production doctrine is subject to various judicially-created exceptions for certain types of documents and certain situations. These exceptions are not discussed herein and cannot be addressed unless and until the Debtor provides more information concerning the basis for his reliance on the doctrine.\n\n30. Notably, the January 20 Order does not instruct the Debtor to submit a declaration concerning any substantive facts that might be incriminating or to disclose the contents of any documents in his possession. Rather, it simply requires the Debtor to describe the process (if any) he and his counsel have undertaken to identify potentially responsive documents. It is hard to understand how the provision of such testimony could possibly be incriminating, and the Debtor's February 7 Declaration contains no explanation of his position on this issue.\n\n31. Far from violating the Debtor's Fifth Amendment rights, testimony by the Debtor regarding his document search and collection process is actually a *prerequisite* to his invocation of the Fifth Amendment over documents in his possession, custody, or control. This is so because, if the Debtor has not first conducted a thorough search and collection process to identify any responsive documents that may exist, he cannot possibly say whether or not the production of such documents would somehow incriminate him.\n\n32. Accordingly, the Debtor has failed to comply with the clear requirement of the January 20 Order that he provide a declaration describing his search for responsive documents.\n\n# **B. Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) Have Failed to Comply With January 20 Order**\n\n33. The January 20 Order clearly and unequivocally required the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) to produce all remaining responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control by the Document Production Deadline. They failed to do so. The Trustee tried to be reasonable in not filing a motion with the Court immediately following the expiration of the deadline; however, ten days have now passed, and the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) have still not produced a single document. Most recently, their counsel informed the Trustee that counsel expects it will take approximately an additional month for them to complete their production obligations. This failure to abide by the Court-ordered deadline—which the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) have not sought to extend—is inexcusable. The Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) should be ordered to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of Court.\n\n## **C. If Respondents Do Not Show Cause for Their Refusal to Satisfy Requirements of January 20 Order, They Should be Held in Contempt of Court and Sanctioned.**\n\n34. This Court has already held the Debtor in contempt of court for violating other orders in this case. If he fails to show cause for his failure to comply with the January 20 Order, the Court should again find him in contempt and issue appropriate sanctions. The Court should do the same with respect to the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA).\n\n35. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as incorporated by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure), courts have the power to impose a range of sanctions as a result of a party's \"fail[ure] to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). \"Where, as here, the nature of the alleged breach of a discovery obligation is the non-production of evidence, [the court] has broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction.\" *Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp.*, 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\n36. One potential sanction a court may issue is an order \"directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims\" and/or \"prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated … defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii); *see Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc.*, 286 F.R.D. 248, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (finding disputed facts established in order to \"restor[e] the prejudiced party to the same position [it] would have been in absent the wrongful conduct\").\n\n37. Here, the Trustee is seeking from the Respondents documents related to the Debtor's potential legal and equitable ownership of assets, including without limitation evidence of his interests in shell companies and other entities and in various real and personal property. To\n\nthe extent the Respondents continue to wrongfully withhold such documents from production, the Court can and should sanction them by finding that such interests and ownership are established for purposes of this case. *See Daval Steel Prod., a Div. of Francosteel Corp. v. M/V Fakredine*, 951 F.2d 1357, 1366 (2d Cir. 1991) (affirming sanctions order finding that plaintiff had established facts necessary to assert claim for \"alter ego\" liability against defendant who failed to comply with discovery orders requiring production of evidence related to that claim). 13\n\n38. Another potential sanction that a court may issue (which this Court has already issued in the past based on the Debtor's contempt of Court<sup>14</sup>) is an award of costs and attorneys' fees. To the extent the Debtor's Daughter and HK (USA) are found in contempt of Court, the Court should compel them to pay the Trustee's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in filing this motion and otherwise seeking to enforce the January 20 Order.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\n<sup>13</sup> A further hearing can be held on the specific sanctions the Court should issue—including the specific factual findings the Court should make against the Respondents—in the event they are found in contempt of Court for violating the January 20 Order. As to the Debtor, any such sanctions are separate from (and in addition to) the Court's ability to draw adverse inferences as a result of the Debtor's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, assuming it is appropriate for him to do so.\n\n<sup>14</sup> *See Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* (ECF No. 1372) (finding \"the Debtor in civil contempt\" and \"sanction[ing] him reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the event he fails to purge himself of contempt\").\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee request that the Court enter an order\n\ngranting the relief requested in this Motion and such other relief as is just and proper.\n\n# Dated: February 10, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, New Haven, Connecticut GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, AND GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) G. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1453 Filed 02/10/23 Entered 02/10/23 19:15:57 Page 16 of 19\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |  |\n\n## **ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT HOLD DEBTOR, MEI GUO, AND HK (USA) IN CONTEMPT OF COURT**\n\nThe Court has found that Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), Mei Guo (the \"Daughter\"), and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK (USA)\" and together with the Debtor and the Daughter, the \"Respondents\") have not complied with the *Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas* (ECF No. 1353) (entered Jan. 20, 2023, the \"January 20 Order\"). Accordingly, it is hereby **ORDERED**:\n\nThe Respondents are to appear at \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023, at the at the United States Bankruptcy Court, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604, and show cause why the Court should not hold them in civil contempt of court for failing to adequately respond to or comply with the January 20 Order; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED**: The Trustee shall file a certificate of service demonstrating service of this Order on the Respondents on or before 12:00 p.m. (noon) on \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |  |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on February 10, 2023, the foregoing Motion, and all declarations, exhibits and attachments thereto, was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. 2 Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> To the extent that the foregoing was filed outside regular business hours, service by mail on recipients unable or not qualified to accept electronic notice was made on the next business day.\n\nDated: February 10, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\nBy: */s/Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人，　:\n:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:　（合并管理）\n\nx\n\n第11章受托人提出动议，请求作出命令，令债务人、MEI GUO（郭美）及HK（USA）说明其为何不应因未遵守强制遵守RULE 2004传票的命令而被认定藐视法庭，并因该等藐视行为受到制裁\n\nLuc Despins（卢克·德斯潘斯）以其在Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，通过其下列签署律师，谨此提交本动议（“本动议”），请求依据《美国法典》第11编第105条（“《破产法典》”）及《联邦破产程序规则》（“《破产程序规则》”）第9014条和第9020条，作出一项实质上采用本动议附件A所附格式的命令（“拟议命令”），要求债务人、Mei Guo（郭美）（“债务人之女”）及HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK（美国）国际基金投资有限责任公司）（“HK (USA)”，并与债务人及债务人之女合称“被申请人”）于法院确定的日期和时间，到美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部，915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604，出庭说明理由，说明法院为何不应因其未能充分回应或遵守法院《部分准许强制遵守Rule 2004传票动议的命令》(ECF No. 1353)（于Jan. 20, 2023作出，“1月20日命令”），而认定其构成民事藐视法庭。为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人：Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok财产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 被申请人在过去约六个月中，几乎在每一步都试图阻挠受托人对财产潜在资产的调查。1月20日命令旨在最终终止该等阻挠行为，具体方式为：(i) 强制被申请人遵守受托人的Rule 2004命令2及相关传票，于Jan. 31, 2023前提交此前扣留的若干文件；以及(ii) 指示债务人于Feb. 7, 2023前向法院提交经宣誓的声明，详细说明其搜寻可能具有回应性的文件所采用的程序。被申请人并未遵守这些指令，也未最终向受托人提供其有权取得的证据开示材料，而是再次选择含糊其辞并拖延。\n\n2. 就债务人而言，其首次针对受托人的Rule 2004传票3，试图援引其根据第五修正案享有的权利，以此不向受托人提交任何文件，亦不提供对其文件搜寻程序的任何说明。债务人负有证明第五修正案免除其证据开示义务的责任，而其在此远未能履行该责任。事实上，债务人完全未说明，为何提交文件或提交1月20日命令所要求的声明会导致其提供不利于己的证言。\n\n2 本初步陈述中未定义的大写术语具有下文赋予其的含义。\n\n3 如法院所熟知，债务人在本案中已多次援引第五修正案——包括于December 2022的一次听证中超过200次——以避免就实体问题提供证言。然而，其此前并未主张第五修正案阻止其提交文件，甚至未主张其无法说明自己搜寻文件的程序。相反，在1月20日命令作出之前，债务人曾向受托人提交了一些（尽管极为有限的）文件，并曾在回应受托人提出的强制动议时，试图向法院说明其收集程序的若干方面——均未援引第五修正案。\n\n债务人所提供的唯一信息如下：\n\n— 于Feb. 1, 2023，即债务人提交文件期限届满后的次日，债务人的破产律师向受托人的律师发送电子邮件称，债务人为回应1月20日命令，“正在主张其根据第五修正案享有的权利，包括根据提交行为原则享有的任何权利。”4\n\n— 于Feb. 7, 2023，债务人向法院提交了一份声明(ECF No. 1444)（“2月7日声明”），称其“就日期为August 17, 2022的传票整体，包括其中列出的所有文件及信息请求，援引[其]根据美国宪法第五修正案享有的权利，包括根据提交行为原则享有的权利。”\n\n— 于Feb. 7, 2023，针对受托人要求进一步说明债务人援引其第五修正案权利的依据，债务人的破产律师表示：“[就债务人援引其第五修正案权利一事，]我们目前没有任何进一步补充。我们将继续与其刑事律师讨论该问题。”5\n\n3. 基于如此薄弱的记录，债务人无权获得对1月20日命令所规定要求的概括性第五修正案保护，特别是在第五修正案如何能够适用于此种情形远非显而易见的情况下。就该命令的文件提交要求而言，债务人至少必须说明，其提交文件的行为除具有不利于己的性质外，如何构成“证言”。至于声明要求，债务人须向法院说明，仅仅描述其搜寻文件的程序（与实际提交该等文件相分离）如何可能导致其自证其罪——该主张表面上毫无意义。其完全未作出任何此类说明。\n\n4 包含债务人破产律师于Feb. 1, 2023向受托人律师发送的电子邮件的电子邮件链，作为支持本动议的Nicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）声明（“Bassett声明”）附件A随本动议同时提交。\n\n5 见Bassett声明，附件A。律师并未说明谁担任债务人的“刑事律师”。\n\n4. 债务人之女及HK USA未遵守1月20日命令的情形更加直接，但同样公然：其仅仅无视法院命令规定的期限，未向受托人提交任何文件。受托人曾多次与其律师会谈协商，但未获任何结果。最近一次是在Feb. 10, 2023，债务人之女及HK USA的律师表示，其认为可能还需要一个月才能履行其文件提交义务。鉴于法院命令规定的期限，任何此类拖延均完全不可接受，并且是对本法院权威的公然漠视。\n\n5. 受托人原本希望避免就此事牵涉法院，特别是鉴于法院在其调解命令中指示，各方在可能的情况下应会谈协商，以避免在调解期间采取法律程序。6 遗憾的是，受托人为通过与被申请人律师的协商一致解决这些问题所作的努力未获成功，使受托人别无选择，只能向法院寻求救济，以处理被申请人未遵守1月20日命令的问题。\n\n6. 受托人通过本动议谨请求，要求被申请人说明其为何不应因违反1月20日命令而被认定藐视法庭。如其未能说明，法院应施加适当制裁，包括但不限于认定若干事实（包括资产所有权）对其成立，并向受托人裁定适当的费用和开支，包括其律师费。\n\n6 被申请人的行为仿佛法院的调解命令已免除其在调解期间遵守其他法院命令以及以其他方式在破产案件中配合受托人的义务。法院的命令并未作出任何此类规定。\n\n背景\n\nA. 受托人的Rule 2004调查。\n\n7. 受托人于July 2022获任命后，立即开始对债务人的资产和事务进行全面调查。鉴于债务人声称，尽管其自称为亿万富翁，其名下实际上几乎没有可供分配给债权人的资产，该项调查对于管理债务人财产至关重要。\n\n8. 于August 16, 2022，为推进受托人的调查，法院作出命令（“Rule 2004命令”）7，授权根据Rule 2004向包括被申请人在内的其他方发出传票以进行审查。根据Rule 2004命令，受托人于或约于August 19, 2022向被申请人送达了Rule 2004传票。\n\n9. 在随后的数月中，受托人不懈努力，以取得被申请人对Rule 2004命令及相关传票的完全遵守。8 然而，如1月20日命令所依据的记录所述，该等努力未获成功。债务人及其圈内的其他人，包括债务人之女及HK (USA)，在每一步均阻挠审查程序，最终分别仅提交合计四十六份（债务人）、十九份（债务人之女）及四百七十二份（HK (USA)）文件。除有限例外外，被申请人拒绝：(i) 提交与其主张属于债务人家庭成员或其他个人及实体的资产有关的文件；(ii) 收集并提交由其律师及顾问持有的文件；或(iii) 充分说明其搜寻具有回应性文件所作努力。\n\n7 见(ECF Nos. 757 and 758)。\n\n8 债务人之女是HK (USA)名义上的唯一所有人；除债务人之女外，HK (USA)没有可据以行事的高级职员、雇员、董事、成员、经理或管理成员。\n\n10. 于October 28, 2022，受托人提交强制动议(ECF No. 1046)（“强制动议”），请求强制被申请人遵守Rule 2004命令及传票。于November 14, 2022，被申请人对强制动议提出联合异议。法院于November 30, 2022就强制动议举行听证。债务人在回应强制动议时从未援引第五修正案作为规避其证据开示义务的手段。听证后，法院作出1月20日命令。\n\nB. 1月20日命令\n\n11. 1月20日命令（January 20 Order）要求债务人：(i) 于 January 31, 2023 下午5:00前（下称“文件提交截止日”），查找并向受托人提交符合下列要求的文件：“受托人于 June 1, 2014 或之后提出的请求；……受托人就其承认拥有的资产以及据称属于债务人以外个人或实体的资产所提出的请求，包括但不限于其家庭成员及关联实体；以及……属于[债务人]保管、占有或控制范围内的受托人请求，包括但不限于其现任或前任律师及其他代理人和顾问档案中的文件”；以及(ii) 于 February 7, 2023 下午5:00前（下称“声明截止日”），向法院提交“一份经宣誓的声明，详细说明其及其律师为响应传票而采取的文件收集、查找和审查行动，包括但不限于详细说明其及其律师为……识别[并查找]债务人的所有”电子设备、在线文件库及各类在线或电子账户、金融账户以及“可能存在的所有其他潜在符合要求的纸质和电子文件来源[。]”所实施的程序。January 20 Order (ECF No. 1353)。\n\n12. 同样，1月20日命令要求债务人的女儿和HK (USA)（HK（美国））于文件提交截止日前，查找并向受托人9提交符合受托人请求的文件，包括有关债务人承认其拥有的资产以及据称属于债务人以外个人或实体的资产的文件，“包括Mei Guo（郭梅）本人及关联实体，包括HK (USA)本身”；以及处于债务人的女儿和HK (USA)保管、占有和控制范围内的文件。同上。\n\nC. 债务人未遵守1月20日命令\n\n13. 文件提交截止日后的次日，Zeizler & Zeisler（Zeizler & Zeisler律师事务所）的债务人律师（“破产律师”）首次向受托人律师发送电子邮件，称债务人就1月20日命令的文件提交要求主张其根据第五修正案（美国宪法第五修正案）享有的权利，包括提交行为原则（act of production doctrine）。在声明截止日，债务人提交了2月7日声明（February 7 Declaration），称其就针对其的Rule 2004命令和传票以及1月20日命令，主张其根据第五修正案享有的权利，包括提交行为原则。\n\n14. 收到2月7日声明后，受托人律师立即向债务人的破产律师发送电子邮件，要求进一步说明第五修正案如何阻止债务人提交文件或准备1月20日命令要求的声明。破产律师答复称，其“目前没有任何进一步内容可就债务人援引其第五修正案权利一事补充”，但律师将继续与债务人的刑事辩护律师讨论该问题。10\n\n9. 1月20日命令将与Lady May（May女士号）有关的文件排除在法院命令债务人的女儿和HK (USA)查找和提交的材料范围之外。\n\n10. 见Bassett Decl., Ex. A。\n\nD. 债务人的女儿和HK (USA)未遵守1月20日命令\n\n15. 自文件提交截止日以来已过去超过10日，但债务人的女儿和HK (USA)既未向受托人提交任何文件，也未确认是否已识别出任何额外符合要求、可供提交的文件。受托人已与债务人的女儿和HK (USA)的律师就该问题进行了讨论，但该等讨论未取得成效。\n\n16. 最初，代理债务人的女儿和HK (USA)的其中一家律师事务所（Zeisler firm（Zeisler律师事务所））请求将完成提交的期限延长至 February 3, 2023，同时各方鉴于法院命令其参与调解的裁定而讨论其他日程安排问题。作为回应，受托人同意，如文件直至 February 3, 2023 才提交，其不会寻求强制遵守1月20日命令。\n\n17. 于 February 3，Zeisler律师事务所代表债务人的女儿和HK (USA)，请求将文件提交截止日进一步延长至 February 17, 2023，并于 February 10, 2023 开始由债务人的女儿和HK (USA)提交文件。尽管受托人不同意该等延期，但受托人表示，其目前不希望不必要地让法院卷入进一步争议，因此，作为实际事项，其不会在 February 7, 2023 之前，就错过截止日一事向法院寻求救济。\n\n18. 于 February 7，根据Zeisler律师事务所的指示，受托人律师通过电话与债务人的女儿和HK (USA)的另一律师Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（CSG Law律师事务所）就遵守1月20日命令一事进行了讨论。在该次谈话中，CSG Law律师事务所的律师表示，其将在次日与其客户讨论对1月20日命令的文件提交要求作出回应的问题，并希望在本周末或可能在下一周初完成其文件提交。受托人律师再次答复称，尽管提交早已逾期，但如文件提交即将完成，受托人不希望将资源耗费于动议程序。CSG Law律师事务所承诺于 February 8, 2023 提供最新情况。\n\n19. 受托人律师未于 February 8 收到最新情况。于 February 9，受托人律师致函CSG Law律师事务所11，要求提供有关提交的最新情况，并提醒律师其客户根据1月20日命令负有查找和提交义务，同时指出，如未获得令人满意的答复，受托人拟于本周末前向法院提出动议寻求救济。于 February 10, 2023，受托人再次与CSG Law律师事务所和Zeisler律师事务所进行了讨论。在该次通话中，CSG Law律师事务所的律师概述了一项收集和提交文件的程序，并指出其预计该程序可能还需一个月完成。\n\n管辖权、审判地及法定依据\n\n20. 法院根据28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334及United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）的转介常设命令（经修订）对本事项具有管辖权。这是28 U.S.C. § 157(b)所指的核心程序。\n\n21. 根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，审判地适格。\n\n22. 本文所请求救济的依据为《破产法典》第105(a)条以及《破产规则》第9014条和第9020条。\n\n救济依据\n\nA. 债务人未遵守1月20日命令\n\n23. 援引第五修正案保护的一方负有举证责任，说明其如何以及为何适用于特定情形。见，例如，In re Schick, 215 B.R. 4, 9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 1997)。为满足该举证责任，该方“必须提供足够的信息，以使法院能够进行事实调查，以确定所寻求文件以及提交行为对于所主张特权的自证其罪可能性。”同上，第9页（引文及内部引号省略）。“[为]有效援引第五修正案的保护，一方必须对每一项证据开示请求提出具体异议。”In re Astor, 62 A.D.3d 867, 869 (2009)（引文及内部引号省略）。\n\n11. 包含受托人律师于 Feb. 9, 2023 发送给CSG Law律师事务所的电子邮件的电子邮件链，作为Bassett声明的附件B附后。\n\n24. 本案中，债务人远未履行其举证责任，证明其为何有权就其文件提交义务或1月20日命令要求其提交说明文件查找和收集程序的声明而获得第五修正案的保护。\n\ni. 债务人未证明第五修正案为何允许其避免提交受托人要求的文件。\n\n25. 第五修正案特权“并不……及于自愿制作的文件内容，因为不存在强制制作该等文件的情形。”Schick 215 B.R. at 8。“当文件内容涉及债务人、其财产及其商业交易时，尤其如此。”同上；另见Butcher v. Bailey, 753 F.2d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1985)（“与遗产财产有关的信息并非如此高度私密，以致引发对隐私利益的严重关切，尤其是在破产案件中，受托人对了解遗产持有物的性质和范围具有强烈利益。”）。\n\n26. 债务人可依据第五修正案扣留文件的唯一可能依据，是所谓的“提交行为”原则。根据该原则，一方为响应传票或其他程序而提交文件，如提交文件的行为本身具有“证言”性质并会使提交方自证其罪，则可能引发第五修正案问题。Schick 215 B.R. at 9。该原则的适用相对罕见，且仅在提交方证明其要求已获满足时方可适用。见同上（“一方并非仅通过声称其提交文件将使自己自证其罪而履行举证责任”，而是必须提供足够的信息，以使法院能够确定该原则是否已被适当援引。）；Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)（“证人并非仅因其宣称作答将使其自证其罪而免于作答——其单方陈述本身并不能确立自证其罪的危险。是否有理由保持沉默，应由法院决定。”）。12\n\n27. 债务人甚至未尝试说明提交行为原则如何允许其避免提交特定文件或特定类别的文件，更遑论受托人请求的全部文件。就债务人占有、保管或控制的所有文件笼统主张适用该原则，既无先例可循，也无从辩护。见Bailey, 753 F.2d at 470（“债务人至少必须对文件进行分类，并说明每一类文件的提交行为为何可能具有自证其罪性。”）。\n\n28. 因此，债务人未遵守1月20日命令中要求其于 January 31, 2023 前提交文件的明确要求。\n\nii. 债务人未证明第五修正案为何阻止其提供所要求的声明。\n\n29. 债务人为回应1月20日命令要求其提供详细说明其查找和收集程序的声明而主张第五修正案特权，尤为令人费解。如上所述，债务人负有举证责任，证明要求其提供的特定证言为何会使其自证其罪。其无法满足该举证责任。\n\n12. 提交行为原则受司法创设的、适用于某些类型文件和某些情形的各种例外限制。本文未讨论该等例外，且除非并直至债务人就其依赖该原则的依据提供更多信息，否则无法予以处理。\n\n30. 值得注意的是，1月20日命令并未指示债务人就任何可能使其自证其罪的实体事实提交声明，也未要求其披露其占有的任何文件内容。相反，该命令仅要求债务人说明其及其律师为识别可能符合要求的文件而采取的程序（如有）。难以理解提供该等证言何以可能使其自证其罪，而债务人的2月7日声明亦未就其在该问题上的立场作出任何说明。\n\n31. 债务人就其文件搜索及收集过程所作的证言，非但没有侵犯债务人的《第五修正案》权利，实际上还是其就其占有、保管或控制的文件援引《第五修正案》的前提条件。这是因为，如果债务人未首先进行彻底的搜索和收集程序，以识别可能存在的任何相关文件，他就不可能说明提交该等文件是否会以某种方式使其自证其罪。\n\n32. 因此，债务人未遵守1月20日命令的明确要求，即提供一份说明其搜索相关文件情况的声明。\n\nB. 债务人的女儿及HK (USA)未遵守1月20日命令\n\n33. 1月20日命令明确且毫不含糊地要求债务人的女儿及HK (USA)在文件提交期限前提交其占有、保管或控制的所有其余相关文件。其未能如此办理。受托人试图保持合理，未在该期限届满后立即向法院提出动议；然而，现已过去十日，债务人的女儿及HK (USA)仍未提交任何一份文件。最近，其律师告知受托人，律师预计其完成提交义务尚需约一个月。其未遵守法院命令规定的期限——债务人的女儿及HK (USA)并未寻求延长期限——不可原谅。应命令债务人的女儿及HK (USA)说明理由，解释为何不应认定其藐视法庭。\n\nC. 如被申请人未能就其拒绝满足1月20日命令的要求说明理由，则应认定其藐视法庭并予以制裁。\n\n34. 本院已因债务人违反本案中的其他命令而认定其藐视法庭。如其未能就其不遵守1月20日命令说明理由，法院应再次认定其藐视法庭并施加适当制裁。对于债务人的女儿及HK (USA)，法院亦应如此处理。\n\n35. 根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（经《联邦破产程序规则》纳入适用），法院有权因一方当事人“未能遵守提供或允许证据开示的命令”而施加一系列制裁。Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)。“如同本案，涉嫌违反证据开示义务的性质为未提交证据时，[法院]在制定适当制裁方面享有广泛裁量权。”Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002)。\n\n36. 法院可施加的一项潜在制裁是命令“就诉讼目的而言，按照胜诉方的主张，将该命令所涵盖的事项或其他指定事实视为已确立”，及/或“禁止不服从命令的一方支持或反对指定的……抗辩，或将指定事项作为证据提出。”Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii); see Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 248, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)（认定争议事实已确立，以“使受损害一方恢复至若无不当行为其本应处于的相同地位”）。\n\n37. 在本案中，受托人正向被申请人索取与债务人对资产可能享有的法定及衡平所有权有关的文件，包括但不限于其在空壳公司及其他实体中的权益，以及其在各种不动产和动产中的权益的证据。在被申请人继续不当拒绝提交该等文件的范围内，法院可以且应当通过认定该等权益及所有权就本案目的而言已获确立，对其实施制裁。See Daval Steel Prod., a Div. of Francosteel Corp. v. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d 1357, 1366 (2d Cir. 1991)（维持制裁命令，该命令认定原告已确立对未遵守要求提交与该项请求有关证据的证据开示命令的被告主张“替身”责任所必需的事实）。13\n\n38. 法院可施加的另一项潜在制裁（本院此前已基于债务人藐视法庭而施加过此项制裁14）是裁定费用及律师费。在债务人的女儿及HK (USA)被认定藐视法庭的范围内，法院应强制其支付受托人为提出本动议及以其他方式寻求执行1月20日命令所产生的费用和开支，包括律师费。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留空。]\n\n13 如被申请人因违反1月20日命令而被认定藐视法庭，可就法院应施加的具体制裁——包括法院应针对被申请人作出的具体事实认定——举行进一步听证。对于债务人，任何该等制裁均独立于（且额外于）法院因债务人援引《第五修正案》而作出不利推定的权力，前提是其适宜作出该等援引。\n\n14 See Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order (ECF No. 1372)（认定“债务人民事藐视法庭”，并“在其未能消除藐视状态时，以合理的律师费及费用对其实施制裁”）。\n\n因此，基于前述理由，受托人请求法院作出命令，准许本动议所请求的救济以及其他公正适当的救济。\n\n日期：February 10, 2023\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），以及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司）\n\n签署：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（经特别许可出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（宝盛律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（经特别许可出庭）\nG. Alexander Bongartz（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨）（经特别许可出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（宝盛律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\nalexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1453 Filed 02/10/23 Entered 02/10/23 19:15:57 Page 16 of 19\n\n附件A\n\n拟议命令\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格州地区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分庭）\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　：\n：　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：\n：　（合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n责令到庭并说明理由命令：为何法院不应认定债务人、MEI GUO（郭梅）及HK (USA)藐视法庭\n\n法院已认定，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）、Mei Guo（郭梅）（“女儿”）及HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）（“HK (USA)”，并与债务人及女儿合称“被申请人”）未遵守准许部分要求遵守Rule 2004传票的动议的命令 (ECF No. 1353)（于Jan. 20, 2023登记，以下简称“1月20日命令”）。因此，现命令如下：\n\n被申请人应于2023年___________________________，在United States Bankruptcy Court（美国破产法院）, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604到庭，并说明理由，解释为何法院不应因其未能充分回应或遵守1月20日命令而认定其构成民事藐视法庭；并进一步\n\n命令：受托人应于2023年___________________________中午12:00前提交送达证明，证明本命令已送达被申请人。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP（宝盛律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），作为Ho Wan Kwok遗产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格州地区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分庭）\n\nx\n\n关于：　：\n：　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　：\n：\n：　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：　（合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，于February 10, 2023，前述动议及其所有声明、附件和附随文件已以电子方式提交。根据法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统的运行，已通过电子邮件向上述标题第11章案件的所有当事人发送该提交的通知；或按照电子提交通知中所示，通过邮件向无法接受电子提交的任何人发送通知。2 当事人可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅该提交文件。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP（宝盛律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），作为Ho Wan Kwok遗产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n2 如前述文件在正常营业时间之外提交，则对无法或无资格接受电子通知的收件人，通过邮件进行的送达于下一营业日完成。\n\n日期：February 10, 2023\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n签署：/s/Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人的律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1046,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1353,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1372,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1444,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5430,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-02-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-02-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:00:16"}